Herb Douglass is against Emergent Church

Herb Douglas appears to be about to conclude his series of articles entitled New Spirituality Movement, Part II: Emerging/Emergent Church and Spiritual Formation, Part 3: Emerging / Emergent Church, What is the Message of the Emerging Church? (Part 4). As you can tell from the title his articles are about the Emerging church or the Emergent Church movement which he considers a new spirituality movement.. Herb is highly critical of the Emerging church while speaking of it in extremely vague ways.

The first article deals mainly with Seeker Sensitive churches. Dr. Douglas states:

“But in 2007, the mesmerizing balloon busted, at least for Hybels. His pastoral staff quietly and deliberately finished a four-year, self-evaluation as to what their highly acclaimed program was really doing for thirty years. In their book, Reveal: Where Are You?, they were honest enough to broadcast what they learned and it was embarrassing. Hybels said that it "rocked my world"—that the findings were "earth-shaking," "ground breaking," and "mind blowing." They now realized that their seeker-friendly programs were "a mistake." The lesson Hybels and his staff learned is that "growing" a congregation goes beyond "attracting" people to church—they needed to restructure their church program to grow their members in their personal relationship with God. His new program is turning out to be another path into New Spirituality. What will the hundreds of Adventist copycats now say to their congregations?”

His only reference to the actual New Spirituality or Emergent church is found in this paragraph:

“If anyone in the past year has been following Christianity Today, the flagship of Evangelicalism, he or she will have noted that it has become the standard-bearer for the Ancient-Future Movement, otherwise known as New Spirituality. It came out of the closet with the February, 2008 issue [see articles here, here and here]. Our friend, David Neff, is the magazine's editor in chief and a leader in advancing churches everywhere into New Spirituality. I read every issue with great interest, with great appreciation for many of its emphases—but the drift is palpable. More on my next blog.”

That kind of prelude certainly should interest most people into finding out what this New Spirituality is. But Dr. Douglas never fulfills our expectations. What Dr. Douglas provides in the next three articles is his opinions without any substantive evidence. As he continues in article two:

“Spiritualism is the open appeal to find Reality, God, Cosmic Consciousness, whatever, through direct contact with the "other" world. It could be through channeling, ouija boards, séances, certain kinds of extra-sensory perception, etc.”

“New Spirituality, at this point in time, doesn't go in that direction although it has much in common with Spiritualism. Both concepts and movements believe in either the immortal soul or the subjective ability to find God or reality within themselves through any number of modalities. Neither believes in the final authority of Scripture or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

What does that really mean? The vast majority of Christians believe in the immortal soul but I am sure it loses some persuasive zest if one says New Spirituality and Spiritualism and Christianity hold to the concept of the immortal soul. The final sentence is more in line with Fundamentalism as opposed to modern Christian thought. The authority of Scripture is usually a Fundamentalist technique used to say their particular interpretation of Scriptures is true, what they say is literal is literal and what they say is symbolic is symbolic and what they say is a metaphor is a metaphor, they become the authority of scriptures. The exclusivity of Jesus Christ also carrying the fundamentalist understanding; meaning that if one does not believe in Jesus Christ whether they ever heard of Christ or not they will not be saved. Something that Ellen White did not even believe. But it is still commonly used to imply that if someone believes God can save people who are members of other religions or never have heard of Christ or don’t believe in the type of Christ that some Christians have taught; that if we believe God can still save them we don’t believe in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. Herb Douglas is using some very loaded language.

Herb Douglas concludes his second article with a list of seven reasons non-Adventist churches are leaping into new spirituality. I will paraphrase them as: 1. Churches using new names rather then just saying Baptist or Methodist. 2. Churches not appealing to “absolute truth” and trying to converse with others who are not even Christians. 3. Churches looking for spiritual healing, meaning physical healing, the use of alternative medicine and stories of miracles. 4. Different ways of experiencing the holy. 5. Mystical rituals and Retreat Centers. 6. Saying that traditional Christianity is not reaching the post modern world. 7. Tolerance of other religions.

Now most of these are fairly reasonable. But like most things these can be taken to extreme just as traditionalism can be taken to an extreme. Most all churches have mystical rituals and stories of miracles, those that appeal to themselves as having absolute truth are self deceived and most are concerned that Christianity is in decline in the western world. If the church has any sense they will pay attention and try to reach this now post modern world. So I don’t find Herb’s list any too impressive.

In part 3 Herbert Douglas asks why are Adventists attracted to emergent churches. The answer it appears is that Adventists have lost their winsome messages because of the publication of the divisive book Questions on Doctrines, producing “whirlwind of fifty years of theological muddle”. That led to Dr. Douglas’ favorite topic last generation perfection as he notes in his article:

* Bull and Lockhart, two English historians, in their remarkable book, Seeking a Sanctuary (second edition, 2007) summed up the theological fork in the road that our seminary began to take as a consequence of the 1957 drift of Questions on Doctrine: "The focus on the crucifixion encouraged by Questions on Doctrine was taken further by the Adventist theologian Edward Heppenstall. . . . His solution to the difficulty of explaining how the sinner could reach perfection was to argue that perfection was neither necessary nor possible. . . . (that) sinlessness cannot be realized here and now." (86-87).

Thus the problem with the Emergent church is that it is not working on the pre 1950’s Adventist orthodoxy. So our pastors find that youth pastors seek techniques involving mimes or clowns “pulpit bands (with their accents on the second beat)” dramatic skits etc. When we should be looking at the GYC conventions where dedicated traditionalist Adventist youth listen to powerful talks by traditionalist Adventists. In other words there is a fork in the road and that fork is traditionalism with its fundamentalist view of absolute truth and everything else on the other fork. Emergent church being part of the everything else, it should be avoided. Simple enough.

In part 4 Dr. Douglas perhaps gives us the reason he does not give any examples of what Emergent churches believe, thus he gave no validation to his assertions aside from they are not traditional Adventists, he writes:

“If anyone tries to define what Emergents or Emerging Church or New Spirituality believes, it is like trying to nail Jello against the wall. And that seems to be exactly what the various Emergents want. The lack of a common belief system is intentional; that is precisely why "conversation" is their chosen word for what they do/think. Their ideas are exploring, and experimenting, but not defining in any way. I find that refreshing in a way, but surely frustrating.”

I found it extremely frustrating that someone would condemn something that he can’t define and can’t document aside from saying that is not what I believe. He then spent a good deal of space with extreme statements, he is against this extreme and that extreme, rather a waste of time but his final line indicates he is not done with his series as I had originally thought. He writes:

“Next time we will let the Emergent leaders speak for themselves.”

I really don’t think he will, I think he will choose a few quotes that make some Emergent Church leaders look like they are contrary to Traditional Adventism and Traditional Adventist methods. Which they naturally are, not being SDA’s . Spending no time on areas where they may even agree with his traditionalism. After all one of the Emergent church leaders he mentions is Rob Bell, someone who does a lot of short Videos. So as I close and wait for Herb’s final chapter spend a few minutes watching one of Rob Bell’s videos.

Resurrection: Rob Bell from The Work of Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Comparision of Forensic vs. Demonstrative atonement

"In a comment on a recent blog article here Douglas Hackleman gave us a link to his article “World’s Apart” written around 1980 for Spectrum. On page 6 he compares the two conflicting views on the Atonement mentioned in the previous blog articles; particularly between Graham Maxwell and Desmond Ford. While the Good News Tour claims that they are not representing Graham Maxwell’s theology the fact remains that most certainly, he has heavily influenced the Good News Tour presenters.

From Hackleman’s article [I applied the text color, green for Forensic and blue for Demonstrative theory which Maxwell calls the Larger View today]:

“The following outline contrasts a few of the major points of conflict between the Forensic and Demonstrative views of the Atonement.

(1a) In Forensic views of the atonement the emphasis is on the desperate need of the sinner to be justified or cleansed from guilt. Salvation, or a right standing, or acceptability with God, is contingent upon the penalty for our breaking the law being paid by Another (Substitution).

(1b) I have labeled the non-forensic understanding of the Atonement the Demonstrative theory because its proponents understand the Cross primarily as a revelation of many things which fit loosely under the word Grace. But because the term “revelation” comes with many semantic loadings, I have disqualified it as a title, opting instead for the Demonstrative theory of the Atonement. The detractors of this position label it Moral Influence theory primarily because it shares the belief that the Cross was intended to bring about a change in man, not in God.

(2a) Forensic theology of the Cross hangs on the concept of Substitution and Representation. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). Christ took our place dying the death that the Law, or Justice, demanded.

(2b) Demonstrative thinking is good for its name at this point, enumerating several truths revealed clearly at the Cross: The Gracious love of God, the awful nature of evil, and the certainty that God can be trusted when He describes the consequences of disorderly living in His orderly universe.

(3a) The writings of St. Paul (particularly Romans the third chapter) are considered normative and authoritative for Forensic interpretations of the Cross. Quoting Desmond Ford: “Romans is the central explanation in the New Testament on the Cross of Christ.” “[Paul] synthesizes the whole weight of God’s preceding revelation. The whole Old Testament is forensic.”8

(3b) All sixty-six books of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White—interpreted in light of the life and teachings of Christ and the Great Controversy in which He was engaged—comprise the background and illumination for the Demonstrative explanation of what happened at the Cross.

(4a) A rather literal interpretation of the forensic metaphors in Scripture—particularly those of Paul in Romans—is demanded by exponents of forensic explanations of the atonement. When others suggest that Christ’s teaching—particularly the Prodigal Son parable—sheds light on God’s attitude toward sinners, Ford says, “I wouldn’t be comfortable trying to take a parable to tell the whole story of salvation,” and he cites the copious presence of forensic language in the Desire of Ages chapter on Gethsemane and Calvary and “all the forensic language there about surety, substitution, wrath.”9

(4b) The Demonstrative advocates interpret the Old Testament sacrificial system and the forensic language of Paul as metaphors of Grace, realizing that the transcendent cannot be described apart from metaphor. This from an understanding of the Great Controversy and the view of God’s posture to sinners taught by Christ through the parable of the Prodigal Son and even more profoundly demonstrated by the way Jesus treated sinners while He lived among us. God, represented by Jesus, did not become Gracious after the Cross, they contend.

(5a) The Forensic concept of sin tends to be objective. There is a tendency to ascribe ontological properties to sin; it is something. You can get it on you. “I have guilt upon me,” as Ford says. Sins, then, can be moved about in books. And the sinner has a “status” or a “standing” which only can be affected by Christ standing in the sinner’s place. Only Christ’s “work done for me matches the Holy Law,” says Ford.10

(5b) By great contrast, the Demonstrative approach to sin emphasizes its subjective nature. It is a severed or hostile relationship, a condition rather than a status, a state rather than a legal standing. This alienated condition called sin expresses its misery not only in estrangement from God but from our fellow humans and ourselves. The Demonstrative theory explains the Cross as necessary to heal sinners because only the Cross could repair the relationship broken by sin.

(6a) Speaking about “God’s holy law” and “the law accusing sinners,” the Forensic explanation of the law tends to objectify—even anthropomorphize—the law, giving it properties of its own, including the capacity to act as a prosecutor. Still, Dr. Ford says,“the law isn’t something outside [God]. The law is just what God is.”11 But that leaves God accusing sinners instead of “the accuser of the brethren,” Satan.

(6b) The law of God—from the Demonstrative perspective—is the way God made the universe and its creatures to operate: the way things are. The Ten Commandments are seen as the human being’s owner’s manual, or service manual. Living out of harmony with the way we were optimally created to live, results, naturally, in a host of miseries ending in death, which Maxwell explains, “is the consequence of disorderly living in an orderly universe.”12

(7a) The Forensic view of the atonement would have to view the death of Christ as an execution— such as the wicked will receive at the end of the age—since Jesus was made to be sin in our place and died the second death for us. Paxton speaks euphemistically about “the Father putting forward the Son to be a propitiation, but at the same time giving Himself in His Son.”13

(7b) The Demonstrative approach explains the second death of the wicked as the natural consequence of separation from God’s sustaining power brought on by intractable rebellion. God “gives them up,” or “lets them go.” Rather than paying the price or penalty for disobedience on the Cross, God demonstrated the terrible consequences of separation in Jesus who was made sin for us and cried out, “Why have you given me up?”

(8a) Ford, Paxton, and others, perceiving a lack of assurance of salvation among the Adventists they encounter, have attempted to rectify this doubt, this uncertainty, by preaching justification with a heavy legal, transactional emphasis. Reacting also to what they feel is a dangerous leaning toward a “Tridentine” theology of “salvation by works” or “imparted righteousness” or “salvation by sanctification,” they have been making it very clear that our assurance of salvation is based on what Christ did on Calvary, not what Christ is doing in me. And the argument rages whether Righteousness by Faith includes only justification or also sanctification.

(8b) Meanwhile, the Demonstrative adherents feel that the uproar over Righteousness by Faith is unfortunate since they believe, behind it all, “our assurance is based on the kind of Person God is,” and that a thorough study of Scripture fosters trust in statements like Paul’s in Romans 1:17 where the Righteousness of God is revealed as the good news of His power to heal and save. If we believe that, the doubt over assurance is unfounded.

Well, is the cross primarily a substitution? Or is it at its heart a revelation? Is it a legitimate method, for understanding the Cross and its purpose, to accept Paul’s forensic language as normative, and to take that language quite literally? Or do we need to focus more on Christ’s revelation of God and His central role in the Great Controversy? And should not the tendency for Paul to emphasize legal terminology be understood as—at least in part—a reflection of the period and culture in which he lived and to which he tendered his unprecedented message?"